Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-84 - Telecom 2346 East Coast HighwayRESOLUTION NO. 2010 -84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING APPLICATION NO. TP2009 -004 FOR A WIRELESS TELECOM PERMIT LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY (PROW) AT 2346 (CS) EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2009 -119) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON JULY 6, 2010, AND HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by NextG Networks of California, Inc. (NextG), with respect to property located at 2346 (CS) East Coast Highway, legally described as: public right - of -way at the NW corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway, requesting approval of a Wireless Telecom Permit as part of a Distributed Antenna System within the PROW. 2. The applicant proposes to attach an omni- directional antenna mounted atop a proposed new free - standing monopole at an overall height of 30 feet 3 inches. 3. The subject property is located within the PROW and is not located within a Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Element designation. 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. 5. Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 15.70.050 and 15.70.070.F.1.c, a Special Review by City Council was held on July 6, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. In accordance with Section 15.70.070.F.3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, applications subject to special review may be approved by City Council if it makes the specified findings. The City Council hereby finds that the evidence, both written and oral, presented to, and considered by the City Council do not support such findings, as set forth below: Finding: A. The approval is necessary to allow the facility to function as intended and identified alternatives to the proposal are not feasible. Facts Not in Support of Finding: A -1. An alternative, higher priority location on an existing City -owned streetlight pole is present in the vicinity of this location where NextG proposes to install a free - standing monopole in the PROW. The applicant has not presented any evidence that the identified alternative is not feasible. Furthermore, the City supports co- location and attachment of the antennas and equipment to the alternative types of higher priority locations described in the NBMC. B. The approved facility will not result in conditions which are materially detrimental to nearby property owners, residents, and businesses, nor to public health or safety. Facts Not in Support of Finding: B -1. The installation of new free - standing monopole in the PROW would be in conflict with the regulations of Chapter 13.20 of the NBMC, which codifies the City's established policy to underground facilities whenever feasible, and prohibits new above - ground facilities in areas where facilities are currently undergrounded. All utilities in this location have been undergrounded. B -2. The proposed facility would have a detrimental visual effect on the public streetscape along East Coast Highway. 2. There is no evidence given which established to the satisfaction of the City Council the Special Requirements in accordance with Section 15.70.050.B.2, as set forth below: Special Requirement: C. Higher priority locations are either not available or are not feasible. Facts Not in Support of Special Requirement: C -1 As specified by Section 15.70.050.B, a higher priority location (existing light standard on the north side of Coast Highway near MacArthur Boulevard) is present. D. Establishment of a facility on a new standard monopole or lattice tower is necessary to provide service. Facts Not in Support of Special Requirement: D -1. NextG does not own or control the radio frequency spectrum to be transmitted, or received at its nodes, nor does it sell wireless services to consumers. Instead, they operate DAS networks to provide access and signal transfer services to third -party wireless service providers. In addition, a higher priority location is present in the vicinity of the proposed location. Therefore, establishment of a new free - standing monopole owned by NextG in the PROW is not necessary to provide service. E. Lack of such a facility would result in a denial of service. Facts Not in Support of Special Requirement: E -1. Because NextG does not own or control the radio frequency spectrum to be transmitted or received at its nodes, nor does it sell wireless services to consumers, lack of such a facility would not result in a denial of service. NextG can have no significant gap in coverage as it is not a wireless carrier, but rather a vendor of wireless equipment used by wireless carriers. MetroPCS, NextG's customer, has not proven that there is a significant gap in its coverage with the City, or in the areas around this proposed location. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Telecom Permit Application No. TP2009 -004. ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. MAYOR ATTEST: 14 FE CITY CLERK ti STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010 -84 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of July, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Webb, Gardner, Mayor Curry Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Daigle IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 28th day of July, 2010. a J. �0, City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal)